Still Stuck in '64

If someone offered me twice the assessed value of my home -- in cash, no questions asked -- I’d schedule a moving van. It wouldn’t matter whether the potential buyer was black, red, brown or polka dotted. The only color I’d be interested in would be green.

However, if I’d lived in my home in 1952, the year after it was built, and an African-American potential buyer had offered me twice the assessed value, I would have been forced to turn the offer down. It was the Jim Crow era, and state and local laws made it illegal to sell homes on my street to blacks.

Here’s part of a Virginia law passed in 1912: “The preservation of the public morals, public health and public order, in the cities and towns of this commonwealth is endangered by the residence of white and colored people in close proximity to one another.” Thus localities were empowered to create “segregation districts.” It was, unbelievably, a misdemeanor “for any colored person, not then residing in a district so defined and designated as a white district, to move into and occupy as a residence any building or portion thereof in such white district.”

That, in a nutshell, is why the country needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal intervention. Many states had enacted laws that prevented free enterprise. It was up to Washington to restore choice to millions of citizens.

That law is much in the news again these days, thanks to Rand Paul. On MSNBC, the Senate candidate seemed to suggest that parts of it over-reached. Dr. Paul has since clarified. “You would have voted yea. You would have voted yes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” Wolf Blitzer asked on CNN. “Yes,” Paul responded.

But that’s coming at this the wrong way. The question should be, “Given societal sea changes over the last 46 years, what parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need to be reauthorized today?” Consider another question Blitzer asked Paul. “Did Woolworth -- Woolworth, the department store, have a right, at their lunch counters, to segregate blacks and whites?”

That misses the historical context. Owners were often mandated, by law, to segregate blacks and whites. “All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license,” read a Georgia law. For its part, Birmingham, Ala., passed a “separate accommodations” law as late as 1963.

The better question would be, “Would any business operating today make it a practice to segregate blacks and whites?” It’s possible. But highly unlikely. Businesses don’t make money by turning down customers.

Of course, there could still be discrimination. The owner of a Bed & Breakfast could decline to host homosexual couples, for example. In that case, federal law could theoretically force that owner to cater to gays.

But again, look at that example from the other direction: If you were gay, would you and your partner want to stay with an owner who self-identifies as opposing your lifestyle? You’d probably want to do the exact opposite -- organize a boycott of the anti-gay owner and deny him business.

There are those who look around, even in 2010, and see a deeply bigoted country. For example, moveon.org is collecting signatures on a petition to oppose “whites only” lunch counters. But is any politician or lobbying group pushing to resegregate lunch counters? It’s a petition to oppose a position that simply doesn’t exist.

Instead of seeing the progress we’ve made since the 1960s (that’s in living memory for many Americans) some insist minorities should live in fear that their rights are about to be stripped. But the burden of proof should be on the fear mongers.

Do they really believe Americans are so bigoted that we’re eager to go back to segregated facilities? Nobody could make this case, because there’s no evidence that American voters would stand for resegregation, and overwhelming evidence (based on the people we’ve elected in recent decades and the laws they’ve passed) that we wouldn’t.

Jim Crow laws were a profound injustice, based on the mistakenly decided Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision that enshrined “separate but equal” facilities. It required federal intervention to fix that injustice, since it had been triggered by the federal government.

But now that Jim Crow’s flown south, he’s never coming back. News flash for those in the news business: It isn’t 1964.

Being colorblind means seeing past color, Agamemnon. It means that we turn off the blackness or brownness or yellowness or whiteness and we see only people. That was the dream of MLK. He wanted us to judge people on the content of their character. He wanted us to shake our neighbor's hand, welcome them to the community, and get to know them.

And last time you said....

To be colorblind to race is to ignore fundamental differences in each other.

Poster digs hole still deeper. Statements manifest internal contradictions and the poster flails about in obvious confusion with a long-winded attempt to try to reconcile statements which are impossible to reconcile at their core.

So, first you said,...

Humans are animals like the rest of the orders, phyla, and geni on this planet. To be colorblind to race is to ignore fundamental differences in each other.

And here's what you now supposedly mean by it:

First, skin color. A black man has more melanin, thus he's darker complected. Fundamental difference.

Fundamental difference in what? Order, phyla, geni? Just so you know, you are arguing with a biochemist here, so make your case as convincing as you think you can. OK doofus, so what is it that causes some human beings to have more melanin than others -- their order, their phyla, or their geni? Oh and while you're at it can you name examples of phyla or orders that interbreed?

I'm going to put aside my commentary on my use of biological orders since I already admitted to using them as simply rhetorical flourish.

Yeah, because you were so busted when you tried to use terms with real meaning in biological science that you obviously don't understand to support your inherent shallownes. Idiot. Nope, not gonna let you off the hook. "Rhetorical flourish" you call it now? I call it BS.

Second, features. Black men and women have dark curly hair, often have issues with dryness to their skin (ashiness), have dark eyes. Fundamental differences.

Just "Black men and women..." exhibit these "Fundamental differences" right?

Never met any Italians, Greeks, Indians, Middle Easterners, Northern Europeans, Chinese, American Indians, Hispanics with any of those traits, or features have you?

Gonna have to crawl out from under that rock you live under and develop better refined powers of observation, unimpeded by bigotries borne of your painfully simplistic and intellectually flaccid penchant for what is merely banal stereotyping.

Third, social distinctions. Many black families are heavily extended. They often live in tight knit social groups together with elders (grandparents), aunts and uncles, cousins, and friends.

Right. Waaaaay different for "white" folk is it? "Black" skin color makes "Those people" that way does it? God forbid that any phenotypically "white" people would ever be accused of living in any manner which might suggest a "tight knit" group, or have any semblance of "extended family" whatsoever.

So that's all your proof for "Fundamental differences," is it?

Let's let you have at it: into what order, phyla, and geni do you put these "animals" -- or so you might call them?

"Yet with the effects of human migrations and cultural habits, people in one place can show tremendous variation in skin tone – like students from the Washington International Primary School.” ‘Unmasking Skin,’ Joel L. Swerdlow, National Geographic, Nov. 2002 p. 46-47.

So when are all these girls supposed to follow your "self-segregating" prescription there, Cooter?

OK next question to Mr. Shallowest of the Shallow, how about for these twin sisters? Where do you think they should "self-segregate" too -- over there to "these people," or over there to "those people"?

Yep. "Fundamental differences." That's the ticket alright.(/sarcasm off)

When I introduced a black woman I was dating to them, the tension was palpable. In a way, (Warning: potential admission of racism) I was using Michelle as a stick with which to prod my elders into discussing this taboo matter.

You are just a shallow bigot who used a "girlfriend" as a prop to needle the family of bigots he grew up with -- possibly including your single mother -- whatever relevance that ever had to this discussion. By the way, this is FR not MySpace. I'll bet your "girlfriend" loved the fact that you used her like that too.

Kinda makes a reader wonder what kind of a stage prop you use your current "girlfriend" for.

Ok, Agamemnon. You win.

Sometimes all I have to do around here is just sit back watch my opponent checkmate himself.

Agamemnon,

First, you're an idiot. You failed to answer even a single question I asked. I realized after I posted that you never once answer any of the questions posed in any of my posts to you or to others. You're so singularly focused on what you can argue that you fail to give any quarter to what you can't. You are the archetypal "scientist" who sits in his little lab doing whatever empirical studies you are assigned to pass your day. You have absolutely zero rhetorical abilities. Your entire argument is based around logos and, just recently, ethos, so your ability to read any emotion into what I posted (pathos) is null. Congratulations, you fail miserably at constructive debate.

Second, you obviously are a single-issue debater. You are STILL completely and totally focused on what I used as a rhetorical flourish that you simply cannot let it go and that in the course of my lengthy post to you, I've successfully shut you down to the point that the only parcel of your previous arguments that you can tenuously hold on to is what you specialize in. For those scoring at home:

I've already admitted that I didn't use order/phylum/genus in their defined and proper way.

I can use much bigger fonts for you if your vision is impaired, because you seem to have missed the numerous times I've already admitted that I wasn't using them in the way you think I was. Furthermore, allow me to dissect and parse my post for you to understand it rhetorically:

Humans are animals like the rest of the orders, phyla, and geni on this planet.

First, "Humans are animals..." Pretty straightforward, nothing factually incorrect about that. Then, "...like the rest of the..." a simile is used in order to make a comparison to something. In this case, the words that follow will be compared to "Humans are animals..." "...orders, phyla, and geni..." And these four words are EVERYTHING that you're arguing about. First off, Mr. Scientist, are "phyla" and "geni" even correct pluralizations of the words? I've already admitted I didn't use the words deliberately, and I'll make another admission here: I didn't even look them up to see if they have plural conjugations. Aww... what's wrong Agamemnon? You still upset that you can't keep arguing because the target of your attacks raised the white flag three posts ago?! And finally, "...on this planet," concludes the sentence to infer that I am speaking solely of all living creatures on this rock we call Earth. I couldn't give one red cent about the definitions of your damn words, because I wasn't using them deliberately. If I cared, I would've studied biology in college, but *gasp* I studied physics instead... imbecile!

Next, you've taken to personal attacks. You've insulted a girlfriend about whom I cared deeply; you've insulted me on numerous occasions; and you've insulted my family. You're batting a thousand there, my friend. Congratulations, you've succeeded in nothing but insulting someone for their beliefs without having a rational, calm, and constructive discussion instead. I hope you've reached a level of self-satisfaction that even the most ardent masturbation couldn't achieve.

Finally, listen putz, if you want to talk to me, how about addressing me as a person instead of speaking to some audience who couldn't give a whit about your puny little ego and referencing me as "Poster..." It's doing nothing for you since you obviously can't address me on a personal level, something I've done throughout this conversation, and it makes you look insignificant and incapable of constructive, rational thought. I hope that whoever ridiculed you in the past for whatever shortcoming you have is happy that they've made you into the person you are today, because you very obviously have social interaction issues and can't read and answer simple questions as posited in my previous post.

Also, consider a thesaurus and go for the simpler words. Rule number one in informal writing: simpler word choice makes for a wider audience. I understood every word, but they only served to make you looked puffed up and fake.

If you wish to continue lambasting me for my views, proceed. Rest assured that I will respond to every one in turn. You're a phony little pissant of a man, Agamemnon.

Regards,
Ron

Actually, Ags, I’m done with this conversation. Call it what you want: a win, a conquest. Your overwhelming disdain for my viewpoints and your constant barrage of negativity has worn on me. My fiancee has noticed, my boss has noticed, my co-workers have noticed, and I’m a fool for letting you get to me.

I post on FR to share ideas, to discuss the events of the day, and to converse with like-minded individuals. You and I obviously don’t see eye to eye or are incapable of communicating ideas in a manner understood by the other. You’ve not answered a single damn question I asked, and the entire point to the article and to my initial post was concerning the laws (with which I disagree) that were passed by bigots during the Civil Rights era. I reiterate, I wasn’t alive then. I have no frame of reference, and all I was asking was for some help understanding the era. You’ve done nothing to advance my understanding and have done nothing but put me down for asking questions and for improperly using some biological terms that I’ve repeatedly admitted I used rhetorically.

I apologize for whatever real or perceived grievance you have with me or my manner of writing and speech. Call me a racist if you want. I simply want blacks to aspire to greatness. I don’t understand why they think we’re holding them back when we’ve given them everything by government fiat.

You’ve reduced my faith in the goodness of men, Agamemnon. You are arrogant, haughty, and you obviously like to correct people for their logic as evidenced in other posts I reviewed under your name. I’m sad that my last post degraded to petty insults, but you’ve done nothing to further my understanding of anything and have insulted everyone close to me.

I have no fight left in me. I’m depressed because of you and have lost sleep over this stupid argument. I’m not a racist and would prostrate myself at the feet of a black man to prove it. I hold no grudge and do not think myself superior to anyone; something to which you obviously have a problem admitting guilt. I bid you good day, and I will pray that I never have to cross your path again on these forums.

Regards,
Ron

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.